Decision 2008: Floridians strike out on amendments

The good news is: Florida turned progressive blue on Tuesday, on the national level.

In a seismic shift, a clear majority of voters swung to Barack Obama, decisively rejecting the failed policies of George W. Bush and the divisive campaigning of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Once a sure red among red states, we rose to the occasion, followed our better natures, and joined the forces of positive change. It is a shining moment. Let's hope it presages better days, because we still have a way to go.

The bad news is: Florida remained regressive red on Tuesday, on the state level. True to our worst instincts, a majority of voters kept existing bigotry in the state constitution and added even more.

Florida voters rejected Constitutional Amendment 1 that would have taken away the power of the Legislature to strip "aliens ineligible for citizenship" of their property rights. The mean-spirited language now in the Florida Constitution was originally aimed against Asian-American immigrants (the "Yellow Peril"). It's a throwback to the early 1900's.

Giving voters the benefit of the doubt, the amendment may not have passed because the language was confusing and voters tend to say no to something they don't understand. Being more realistic, I'm guessing the amendment was struck down as a casualty of all the talk against illegal aliens during the early phase of the presidential primaries. That misguided demagoguery may simply have prejudiced voters against anything with the word "aliens," let alone "ineligible" aliens, in it. Whatever: Knowingly or unknowingly, Florida voters reaffirmed 100 years of discrimination.

In another fit of mean-spirited prejudice, Florida voters approved Amendment 2, the purposely mislabeled "Marriage Protection Amendment." What should have been called the "Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Amendment" was really just an effort to put some social red meat on the ballot to get ultra-conservative voters to the polls to ensure that the state wouldn't put a Democrat in the White House. It failed to do that, but has left us with a black mark against us.

Marriage did not need to be "protected" in Florida. State law already prohibits same-sex unions. The muddled language of the amendment will now throw into doubt the health care and pension benefits of unmarried couples living together. It will surely lead to lawsuits - and to other, more sweeping, socially conservative initiatives. The architect of the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment has already said that he will now attempt to outlaw divorce in Florida. Who knows what's after that?

So, blue on the surface and red underneath, where do we go from here? And how can we possibly get to the live-and-let-live frame of mind that finally brings us social peace? How can we reconcile the push-pull of our warring sensibilities?

Based upon Tuesday's election, I'm not sure we can, at least any time soon. We rose to the occasion, voted according to our better natures at the national level; but I fear that we will remain a state hopelessly conflicted - never quite shedding the blanket of our prejudices, too comfortably wrapped in our mantle of self-righteousness, too eager to exploit the them-versus-us mentality that, until now, has guaranteed some people political power and financial rewards.

So, I intend to rail against anything red in Florida until I'm blue in the face. I hope you do, too.